Talk:Camellia sinensis
__TOC__ To tea or not to tea? How should this and 'tea the article' be interlinked? Jackiespeel 10:12, January 11, 2012 (UTC) :Hmm … I do not understand the question. I could not find an article here at WikiTea called tea. — SpikeToronto 11:17, January 11, 2012 (UTC) ::The 'Wanted pages' list (which I am intermittently working on) has 'Tea' at the top of the list - and people are more likely to link to that heading than this. So - redirect or separate coverage? (I can see the arguments for both). Jackiespeel 13:02, January 11, 2012 (UTC) :::Okay, now I get it! That is a very good question. In my opinion, for what it’s worth, I think that Camellia sinensis is but one type of tea. Thus, it would be represented in the tea article by one section wherein there would be a little note directing the reader to the Camellia sinensis article. (This redirect is usually done using something like w:c:admintools:Template:Main, which you can see in use here.) I would expect the tea article to deal with more than just the one type of tea, but also discuss how tea can be made with a variety of different “flora” (e.g., Chamomile). In other words, whereas the Camellia sinensis article deals with a very specific tea, the tea article would be a general overview of tea, tea history, tea cultivatation, global spread, etc., with each of those sections being only a small blurb accompanied by a note to the reader where they can find the larger article. (See wikipedia:tea for an example.) — SpikeToronto 00:46, January 12, 2012 (UTC) ::::I see it slightly differently, and phrased it that way in the version I just wrote. Camellia sinensis is not just one type of tea, but the primary referent of the term; other teas are often referred to by the term, but there are many people who object to the word "tea" being used for anything but tea from C. sinensis. I have tried to reflect both terminologies. -- BruceG 01:06, January 12, 2012 (UTC) :::::You’re right of course, Bruce. But, the number two definition at Merriam-Webster relates to other infusions: 2 a (1) : any of numerous plants somewhat resembling tea in appearance or properties (2) : an infusion prepared from their leaves and used medicinally or as a beverage -- used usually with qualifying adjective or attributive; see ABYSSINIAN TEA, BREAST TEA, LABRADOR TEA, SAGE TEA Our job is not to be prescriptivists, saying that tea should only reflect the primary definition of the word. It’s also not a very encyclopedic approach. Have a look at Wikipedia’s article on the topic. It really is a good model: Its primary focus is, as you suggest, on Camellia sinensis and everything related to it (e.g., development, cultivation, marketting, etc.). But, tea from other sources is not ignored. I myself tend to refer to non-''Camellia sinensis'' “teas” as herbals, infusions, tisanes, but I also accept that billions of people call them tea. By the way, I have a very recent edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. I can have a look at their treatment of the subject, if you’d like. — SpikeToronto 04:14, January 12, 2012 (UTC) ::::::It seems to me that the way I wrote it up ("The term is also applied to ...," with a link to Herbal tea) accords with your statement that "our job is not to be prescriptivists, saying that tea should only reflect the primary definition of the word." At the same time, by saying "Some people object..." I make it clear that there are people who take the purist attitude. I don't think we are in serious disagreement on that point. It's just that for me, anything regarding herbal teas, beyond stating that they exist, does not belong in the Tea article, but rather in the Herbal tea article. -- BruceG 13:36, January 12, 2012 (UTC) (Restart indent) The point I was making was that people are more likely to look up 'tea' than 'Camellia sinesis' - and so long as there are sufficient links to relevant pages, the solution suffices. Wikinfo (not on Wikia) allows articles/essays for and against particular concepts - if anybody wishes to write a suitable (and suitably measured) article on why 'tea-the-term' should be confined to C sinesis rather than the colloquial usage, it could well have a place here. Jackiespeel 13:46, January 12, 2012 (UTC) :Point-counterpoint! Wow. I wonder how that should be treated as far as which namespace, etc.? — SpikeToronto 06:17, January 13, 2012 (UTC) I think that 'quotes, recipes and essays' could be developed in other food related wikis. (I may start some off myself.) Jackiespeel 09:50, January 13, 2012 (UTC)